Overall survival (OS) analysis from PRIME: Randomized phase III study of panitumumab (pmab) with FOLFOX4 for first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3620 Background: The primary and final analyses of PRIME demonstrated that pmab + FOLFOX4 significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs FOLFOX4 alone for first-line treatment of patients (pts) with wild-type (WT) KRAS exon 2 mCRC. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to pmab 6.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks + FOLFOX4 or FOLFOX4 alone and had no prior chemotherapy for mCRC, ECOG performance status ≤ 2, and tumor tissue for biomarker testing. The primary endpoint was PFS by central assessment. Secondary endpoints included OS, objective response rate, and safety. KRAS exon 2 tumor status was determined by a blinded central lab prior to the primary analysis. This exploratory analysis of updated survival (>80% OS events) estimated the treatment effect of pmab + FOLFOX4 compared with FOLFOX4 alone on OS by KRAS exon 2 status. Previous analyses in pts with WT KRAS exon 2 tumor status reported OS with an event rate of 54% of pts in the primary analysis and 68% of pts in the final analysis. Results: 1183 pts were randomized and received treatment: 593 pts in the pmab + FOLFOX4 arm and 590 pts in the FOLFOX4 alone arm. The KRAS exon 2 ascertainment rate was 93%, consistent with the primary analysis. 535/656 pts (82%) with WT KRAS exon 2 mCRC had an OS event at the time of this analysis. Results are shown (Table). Conclusions: In this updated analysis, an improvement in OS was observed in pts with WT KRAS exon 2 mCRC treated with pmab + FOLFOX4 vs FOLFOX4 alone (p = 0.03). Median OS was reduced in pts with mutant (MT) KRAS mCRC (p = 0.16) and is consistent with previous analyses. Updated efficacy and safety results will be presented. KRAS testing is critical to select appropriate pts with mCRC for treatment with pmab. Clinical trial information: NCT00364013. [Table: see text]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".